Lessons From Jeremiah

by Jack Kinsella of Omega Letter

For all its great, swelling words of friendship and empty gestures of loyalty, all the signs are pointing to the Obama administration getting ready to give Israel the Jeremiah [Wright] treatment.

"He's been my pastor for twenty years. . . . I could no more disown him than I could my own grandmother . . . he married me and my wife. . . he baptized my kids. . . he's like a family member. . . ummm, Jeremiah who?"

Obama knew he had the black vote, so he didn't need to pander to them. But Jeremiah Wright was killing Obama's numbers among whites, and even factoring in the split between whites and Hispanics, Obama still needed a significant portion of the white vote in order to put him over the top.

So Jeremiah Wright had to go. Obama let him down as gently as he could, but Jeremiah Wright, (who evidently had not changed in his rhetoric or his relationship one bit) was history.

Obama clearly had great affection for the old man, whom he likened to "an old uncle." And a twenty-year relationship with a man one credits with leading him to Christ is a bond not easily broken.

So Obama waited a week or so before allowing himself to be "outraged" enough by his best friend, advisor and mentor to throw him -- and their 20 year friendship under the bus.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday... The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.... What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for, and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. . . . ...[W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this."'

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been signaling that Israel may soon get the Jeremiah treatment.

Obama is 'shocked' to learn that the incoming Israeli government is unwilling to entertain some form of compromise over a nuclear Iran. He is outraged that the Israelis elected Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in the first place.

Obama is shocked that Israeli opinion polls show a majority of Israelis now reject the two-state solution as a viable peace plan. Why?

Because internal Palestinian polls show that a majority of Palestinians also reject a two-state solution.

The majority of Palestinians living inside Israel want to stay inside Israel. The majority of Palestinians living in the West Bank want to live inside Israel.

Thanks to twenty years of Yasser Arafat's propaganda machine, most young Palestinians suffer from what I'll call the "Gaza Syndrome." They objected to the prosperous Israeli settlements inside Gaza where many of them worked.

They wanted it for themselves. When Sharon pulled out and handed it to them, they were astonished to discover the prosperity went when the Jews did.

Today, West Bank Palestinians look at what Israel is and they look at what the West Bank has become since the PA took over. And they want what Israel has, not making the connection that without the Jews, it would crumble to dust as did Gaza.

There was never an unconditional 'two-state solution' on the table. Israel would only agree to accept the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state after the Palestinian Authority dismantled all terror groups operating in Palestinian society including its own Fatah terror groups.

The Obama administration sees the equation exactly backwards, as if it were the Jewish state, rather than the Palestinian state, whose legitimacy was contingent on its actions.

The pressure is on Israel to accept Hamas, Fatah, or whatever other terrorist organization rises to the top of the Palestinian leadership.

So if Israel doesn't accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian government then it becomes Israel whose right to exist is suspect. Israel becomes the stumbling-block to peace. It is Israel [that] is the intransigent party, not the Palestinians.

And it will be Israel that will follow Jeremiah under the bus.

I was baffled at Obama's choice of Joe Biden for his Veep -- but I was looking at Biden from the perspective of a campaign liability.

I never thought about what a brilliant asset he would be from the perspective of actually being part of the administration.

Joe Biden is the perfect messenger. Joe Biden is better known for his high-profile 'gaffes' (that's a polite way of saying he is an untrustworthy, serial liar, but a darned charming one) than he is for any legislative accomplishments over his career.

If Obama was testing the waters on some really, really risky decisions, who better to send out there than Joe Biden? If the country goes berserk and you know the plan will never fly, you just shake your head and say, "Joe, Joe, Joe," and sigh.

So, last week, Obama sent Joe Biden out to explain the administration's developing position regarding Iran and Israel.

Obama has made reconciliation with the Muslim world the centerpiece of his administration's foreign policy. His bow before the King of Mecca was no accident.

Obama's sights are set on some kind of 'grand reconciliation' with Iran. Israel is rightly concerned that it may find itself the sacrificial victim of that agenda, (the way Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in exchange for the 1938 Munich Peace Agreement with Germany.)

So, Biden arranged to be asked on CNN whether he was concerned that Netanyahu might strike the Iranian nuclear facilities.

"I don't believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that. I think he would be ill-advised to do that," Biden said. "And so my level of concern is no different than it was a year ago."

The Obama administration held its breath and waited for the expected outcry. There was none to speak of. Maybe because it was Joe Biden and so nobody took him seriously.

Maybe it was because the public is preoccupied with its own domestic problems. But the balloon went up, nobody shot it down, and so the Iran fence-mending agenda moves forward.

The New York Times says that Obama is considering dropping a long-standing precondition that Iran shut down its nuclear program before entering into direct talks with the United States.

Obama proposes that Tehran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks, a total break from previous US policy.

It would allow the Iranians to stall the talks indefinitely at the negotiating table until Iran has enough nuclear weapons to mute further objections.

The way North Korea did. The way that Pakistan did. Once you go nuclear, you don't need to negotiate any more. You don't have to.

Israeli President Shimon Peres gave an interview on Kol Hai Radio that gave some hint of what the thinking is behind the scenes.

Peres, a notorious dove and a principal architect of the Oslo Agreement, said that while he hoped Obama's call for dialogue with Ahmadinejad would be heeded, he warned that if such talks don't soften the Iranian president's approach "we'll strike him."

Noted the Israel Insider, "It was an unusually unambiguous threat and may reflect growing impatience and doubts about the Obama administration's intentions and methods."

Among the places we visited when we were in Israel was the Yad Vashem Memorial to the Holocaust. It is a brand-new facility and is laid out chronologically. Our guide gave us an hour, and after about an hour and a half, he had to come track me down and retrieve me.

Boaz seemed surprised that I was still so close to the beginning of the exhibit -- still in the 1930's. "Is this as far as you've gotten? You've missed most of the exhibit!"

I was going as fast as I could. Everywhere I looked, I saw parallels between the 1930's and the situation as it exists today.

Some large, some small, some that were undeniable and some where you had to squint a little bit to see them, but there were enough to keep me riveted there for an hour and a half.

What riveted me was the parallels -- all across the board. The propaganda targets of the 1930's were different than today. But the techniques are the same.

Germany was no less open about its intentions than Iran is. Italy was no more sure of its own plans than is Venezuela.

The United Nations is no more effective than was the League of Nations.

And should it come to blows between Iran and Israel, it's even less clear which side America would take today than it was in 1940.

Georges Santayana said, "He who fails to learn the lessons of history is doomed to repeat them." Mark Twain said that "history doesn't repeat itself. But it rhymes."

Obama said, "I could no more disown Jeremiah [Wright] than I could my own grandmother."

Then he chucked him under the bus without a backward look.